Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[surphninja]

And if you have a site blocked and it is running mostly high-quality ads, you would never know.

Umm.. which sites are those? Cause I'm looking at the sidebar here, and it's not tom's.

 

[Brian_R170]

Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that saw red flags after reading this old cliche used by the scummiest hard-sell salespeople. Sorry, but Toms is the worst offender of any website I regularly visit for annoying aggressive ads that are just trying to trick readers into clicking instead of presenting them with advertising they actually might want to see. There have been times that I stopped reading an article on Toms because the ads were so annoying, and there have been times where I was so annoyed at constant long load times and browser errors, that I closed my browser before the main page finished loading and didn't come back for days. I don't use ad blockers, but I certainly understand why people do, especially on tomshardware.com.

A agree that advertisers have brought this on themselves, but I'll also say that Tomshardware has brought it upon itself, too, because Toms has a choice in ad content and presentation and it chose cheap and slimy.

 

[Smartestguyintheroom]

I was never going to buy the crap anyway, I have never purchased a single thing because of advertising and honestly my impression is the harder something is begging for attention the worse product it must be. In addition the advertisements are massive security holes and if your 3rd party ads that your site doesn't even screen messes up my $4000 computer, who is going to pay to fix it? You can't blame end users for blocking malicious and bandwidth wasting ads that do nothing but clutter up the environment. Charging users isn't a very good idea either, as I read this site quite a lot but its real world value to me is much less than the security risk of giving you any money.

 

[10tacle]

Well that's just too bad. I have already decreased my visitations to several websites that have overly obnoxious ads that inhibit my ability to even read the freaking website! One of the worst offenders is an ad that won't even allow you to scroll down into the article until it's finished playing. You try and scroll and it just keeps going back to the top where the ad is.

I have my Flash player disabled to prompt me to manually choose to play whatever the video is. It used to be that pop-up blockers from the browsers would stop the ads, but these days few advertisers use that late-90s era tech. Most everything is imbedded.

Probably the most annoying of all is when websites have multiple ads going on and you CANNOT mute them nor pause them. You have to turn down your speakers. What's next? Will there be ads that override control of my SPEAKERS next? This intrusion insanity must be stopped one way or another. I am free to change channels on my radio or TV when ads come, and then return back to that channel when the show has returned. When DVR'ing, I can FF through the commercials. That is not "stealing" anymore than killing off the ads for a website.

And again, if I'm annoyed enough, I will taking my viewing elsewhere. However, most tech websites like Tom's have things advertised that I may be interested in and those are the click ads. I will click on one that interests me not only to check it out, but to give a +1 ad click for the website. That's not the complaint here...it's the mandatory in-your-face ads that practically hijack your computer that most users have a major problem with.

 

[sephirotic]

So many wrong things in this article I don´t even know where to begin. This stinks BADLY as Shill.

 

[helmutcheese]

Did some court last month not state Adblock plus is not illegal.

So its not sealing as stealing is illegal.

Some website as horrid with the amount of junk that pops up on them and some even have viruses imbedded but lucky for me get caught by MAM/ESET if I had to disable ad block for some reason..

 

[NuclearShadow]

Alright, well I can see why you want your users to view ads, but I think some compromise should be made with users. Ad-block exists because of the nature of ads online. If they weren't so bad in so many ways which I will go into further in a moment ad block wouldn't have ever existed. While you may claim that us making demands is unreasonable I believe it is the other way around and to some degree unethical on a website's part to host certain types of ads.

For example those flashing ads with bright colors. We've all seen them since the 90's. Do you really expect someone with epilepsy to not be able to make the reasonable request for you not to host such? Even worse they won't even know that you do until they are exposed to it.

Or how about harmful ads? While rare they do exist. You know how shady websites will often try to infect you when you visit their page? Ads are capable of doing this too. Do you really think it's fair for us to take that risk when you take no precaution against this at all? Sure I'd believe you if you said you would pull the ad after finding out, but that doesn't stop those already affected by it. You have a morale responsibility to investigate before accepting ads.

Next is unethical practices of certain ads. Weight loss ads are most known for this and it happened to a friend of my ex-wife. One day she came across a weight loss pill add that displayed her before and after picture that the advertisers stole off of a weight loss forum. She of course never used said product and found out this is a terribly common practice. Do you think it is morally right for you to host these ads? I would be willing to bet a king's fortune you've never investigated if any of the ads seen on Tom's were a result of such.

Or how about the ads that target desperate people? Again this could be a scam weight loss product or even one that "targets" illness that is a scam. Desperate people will go to desperate measures. I'm sure you're a rational person and wouldn't advise anyone to go to a miracle healer like you see on TV even more so if that "healer" charges right? So should you or any other site host ads that try to sell "alternative medicines"? You would be directly aiding in these people getting scammed so you could what? Get a few cents because they saw the ad? Is your mortality so easily toppled over a few pennies?

Do I even need to go on with more examples? You have kids to feed, we all do. But we resolve this with honest and morale hard work. What you are advocating if for us to look the other way while you help others possibly attempt to mislead and possibly even harm us. That is on you for being a part of that in the name of profit, so shame on you for trying to defend such a practice. It doesn't even have to be this way, all you'd have to do is be sensible about which ads you accept to put up. But instead you point the fingers at the people who don't wish to be victims and demonize us.

Shame on you and shame on Tom's for even letting this get published.

 

[apiltch]

The author failed to explain how not watching an ad is stealing. Who gets the "stolen" ad time money? If its MY attention the ads are aiming for, then I can chose what to watch or what not to watch. If I throw away junk mail is that also stealing? Poorly written and conceived article.

Depending on the terms of the campaign or ad network, publishers get paid based on a combination of ad impressions, clicks or actual sales after the click. If you block an ad, those impressions are lost, even if you would have chosen not to click the ads. Also, there's always a possibility that you might click an ad if you saw one that appealed to you.

 

[TheAC]

After reading this pathetic article, I have decided to get AdBlock. Obnoxious ads and self entitled people like you are the worst.

 

[elbert]

Ads we see all the time. In stores they promote products which you expect to see. On the web tho its all out there. While some sites adhere to advertising for the expected stuff. Its very common to the worst on some of the most respected sites. Secondly while some in store ads may corrupt the person it doesn't pose a risk of break down the car or emptying your bank account. The ad blocker is no different than the red curtain in a video store. The question I would ask is ad blocking enough. I use a full blown script blocker plus ad blocker. I control what I see which is only the stuff I expect to see at sites.

 

[bluestar2k11]

Since i started running an adblocker and ghostery, my positive checks for viruses and malware dropped by like 90%, and as another poster said, my internet speed has improved.

If you want to test this, go use steams web browser, and tell me the results vs your normal one.

I'm sorry if it hurts some webmasters income, but there's far too much crap displayed on pages, and far too much malicious software roaming the net to do anything but block it all.

Does no one remember roaming the web in 1997? It was a disaster if you went to the wrong site, and now it's getting as bad again because standard sites are doing the same thing.

It's well within the consumer's rights to protect themselves, their data, and their computers from unknown entities that are displayed even on "trusted" sites.

 

[Drazek]

Wow, how conceited is this article? - it is each and every person's choice to decide whether they wish to be hounded by advertisements or not. I don't allow random people to knock on my front door attempting to sell me stuff, nor do I or should I allow random companies plastering all over the websites I frequent trying to sell me stuff! - If I don't want it, I won't allow it, nor should I allow it, full stop.

Also as the above commenters have said, there are far too many malicious adverts in the ad networks that try to trick you into clicking them, or downloading something, which will do you more harm than good.

If a website/ad network were to properly manager their advertising to stop these maliscious adverts then I would consider adding them to my whitelist, as websites I frequent (such as Toms Hardware) I wouldn't mind having my eyes raped for a while if it helps them to keep running.

However, simply because this article was allowed to be posted, I will be taking this as Toms Guides official stance on advertising, and I will be removing Toms Hardware from my white list starting today. - You and your advertising revenue be damned!

 

[inveriti]

This article could have been better-written by a sophomore in high school. "Blocking ads is like taking food from a child's mouth." Really? Hyperbole AND a "do it for the children" pathos appeal?

If ANY advertisements, even on reputable sites, were not complete crap like the "Insurance companies don't want this secret out," or "Plastic surgeons HATE this one simple trick," I wouldn't block them. Five years ago, built-in advertising was actually useful. Now it's 99% clickbait that is misleading on its best day, and outright malicious on its worst.

I don't mind advertising. When Tom's has sponsored content, I don't care. When reputable news outlets have uncurated, misleading advertisements posing as articles or news, I care. Blocking them is an INTENTIONAL protest against their lack of supervision and unwillingness to take responsibility for and ownership of the content presented on their site. If that means the site shuts down, SO BE IT. That is the price they pay for their lack of attention to their product.

 

[Wes006]

Articles like this, that are outright specious, that whine and deem blatant lies as empirical truth, out of self interest do not deserve my respect or time. Don't worry though, there is a solution. If the advertisers aren't paying your site well enough because of a monetized views/clicks quota that's not being reached. I'm sure the Tom's community could assist with a donation type system, that way you can all buy yourselves a WAAHHmburber and french cries. With that said, things would change for the better if this article proposed an alternative solution. Give members the ability to donate for an ad free experience. Write an article explaining the situation, and ask for feedback or even run a poll. I'm sure that would receive a much more positive reception, instead of writing an article the way a seasoned advertiser would - devious. It's only going to drive people to steer clear from this site. I would think long and hard about it. Pretty much every single comment on here is solid proof that the Tom's community views this article as a joke.

 

[evil_gn0me]

Be more proud of your content Toms.
Why not run a premium service? Make it ad-free and hide some content behind a pay wall, Foster your community and love them and they will love you back.
If you don't want to put the effort into your community or you don't think your content is good enough to get enough premium members to support you through hard time's then you've got no right to complain when someone uses ad-block.
Do a better job!
Simple as that.

 

[Drazek]

Wow how conceited is this article? - anybody and everybody has a right to decide whether they wish to allow adverts to show in their browsers. I don't allow random people to knock on my door and try to sell me stuff, so why would I or should I allow random companies try to sell me stuff on the websites I frequent?

As other commenters have stated, there are far too many malicious advertisements in these ad-networks, trying to get you to click on them to fish your details, trying to get you to download things, fake download buttons and everything. If websites and their ad-content networks would properly administer the advertisements that get shown then I would consider adding them to my white list.

Take Spiceworks for example, they only show legitimate advertisements, and even have a little message that pops up stating that they receive ad-revenue from the advertisements and that they are clean and unobtrusive. - so naturally, they're on my white list.

However, purely because of the fact that Toms Guide allowed this article to be posted, I shall take this as being Toms Guide's official stance on advertising, and I shall be removing them from my white list as of this moment. - damn you and damn your advertising revenue!!

 

[Dyseman]

Agree with most all comments. Slow Connections at work. Capped at home. Want to see only what I came to see. Hell, adblockPlus already blocked 45 on this page. And on main page when I continue to scroll through all of the news articles, it can get over 500. When you have a cap, that's too much.

I think sites like weather.com was advertise.com with a pinch of weather.

Also, on Win10 when I made Chrome or Firefox my default browser, it asked why. I type in, each and everytime it comes up, Because I want adblock. I don't surf without it.

Criminal? Come get me. Otherwise, thanks for the adblock advertisement.

 

[mnd_bg]

Not once in my 16 years of surfing the internet I have deliberately clicked on an advert.
I use an add blocker because things have grown out of control - some websites have more adverts than content regarding the subject I want to read about. I don't mind having one banner on top of the website and/or one on the left/right but these days are long gone.
I know what I need in my life I don't need adverts to tell me that.

 

[TimelessSmurF]

Toms writing about ad block being evil just got it removed of my whitelist, thanks tom for showing who you really care for, I'll do the same.

Brilliant! I'll do the same and remove them from my daily website visits!

Registered an account just to post this although I have been an anonymous reader for years.

 

[Quixit]

So is it also "stealing" every time I change the channel or mute the TV whenever commercials come on? How about when I add my phone number to the Government Sponsored, "Do Not Call" list? Isn't that ad blocking as well?

I've realize that the intention of advertisement is to make an individual aware of some product or service, but I, for one, do not need (or want) it shoved down my throat. If I want a product or service, I have the resources to find it on my own.

-Wolf sends

By this logic, of course. I'm beginning to think that what this is actually going to cause is the death of for-profit web journalism. "What?" I can hear you all scream. Hardware review sites are not going to stop existing, even if there is no money at all to be made it in. There are plenty of people who are willing to review hardware, at little to no profit (small tech sites are already run by them). The only thing this is going to cause is the death of big for-profit organizations.

Heck, if this becomes a bit problem I may launch my own non-profit site. I'm sure I can manage a review or two a month myself and I can get a few more people on to write a few more. Redirect the time I spend writing these comments into news posts and yeah... Ad-supported web journalism may be under assault, but it's not going to change much in the long term.